|
Member
(04-02-2012, 08:05 PM)
|
Capcom: "'On disc DLC no different than download"
#1
well i just read this article at develop-online.net and I though this might be interesting to share
according to the site "Customers have since filed several compaints with the Better Business Bureau, citing "false advertising", and "dissatisfaction". Cinemablend reports that Capcom has responded to these complaints by claiming there is no difference between DLC and disc-locked content." Source: Develop-online.net I don't know for me there is a huge difference as they are marketed as downloadable and stuff so you expect them to be coded and added later into the games life cycle but well this is just Capcom being Capcom well Lock if old, etc |
|
|
|
Banned
(04-02-2012, 08:06 PM)
|
#6
There really isn't. They're gonna put it out anyway, may as well plan it in advance and put it on this disc so i don't have to deal with Compatibility packs. The whole idea that DLC is done out of pure inspiration post release is crap.
C C C COMBO BREAKER and of course, it's me. Come at me Riposte :) |
|
is too reasonable
for this forum (04-02-2012, 08:08 PM)
|
#17
On-disc DLC is an okay decision for a fighting game, otherwise you run in to shitty situations like MK.
But when you start claiming it's there because it's not finished or not there at all is when you lose the moral highground, if you ever had it. |
|
(04-02-2012, 08:08 PM)
|
#18
I disagree.
Oops...I mean, bullshit! |
|
Member
(04-02-2012, 08:08 PM)
|
#19
Bullshit. DLC was invented to add content to the game after its been released. This way you could get the game out earlier and make a little extra money on the side.
Now it's almost entirely used to charge extra for held-back content, regardless if it is ready or not. |
|
(04-02-2012, 08:09 PM)
|
#27
Originally Posted by Friedreich:
|
|
fired zero bullets in the orphanage.
(04-02-2012, 08:09 PM)
|
#31
Bull fucking shit.
Originally Posted by Rabbitwork:
|
|
aka Meus Renaissance
(04-02-2012, 08:10 PM)
|
#34
I've read the argument here before that you don't own the content of the game but rather the licence to play it. Using that logic, criticising this practice of DLC on disc merely because it's on the disc doesn't hold up; it is no different than downloading it. The question is whether the consumer knows he/she is purchasing what was advertised and as the DLC on the disc was not advertised as being on the disc, then what's the problem here..
|
|
Banned
(04-02-2012, 08:10 PM)
|
#35
Originally Posted by Cheesecakebobby:
really? having the option to spend a few bucks = raped? |
|
Member
(04-02-2012, 08:11 PM)
|
#40
That entirely depends if the DLC is just part of the original game and the Developers/Publishers just snipped it off to sell to suckers, then it is identical to on disc DLC. You buy a game, you should not have to pay to unlock things already present on the disc.
If Developers are actually making additional content for the game, then that DLC is fine. Borderlands for example. |
|
card-carrying scientician
(04-02-2012, 08:11 PM)
|
#44
Why is it different? I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can articulate why its different when literally the only physical difference is that in a download situation the information is transmitted remotely. To be clear: in both cases you pay the same amount, in both cases you gain access to the same content, the actual remote transmission is the only distinguishing factor.
|
|
is too reasonable
for this forum (04-02-2012, 08:11 PM)
|
#47
Get used to this, people.
The effective price of game development is just going to continue raising and they can't raise MSRP. So cutting content and selling it separately (SFxT fighters, Javik DLC) is going to be the new norm. The only way it will stop is if people stop paying for it, which they won't. |
